Blog

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, an
eminent scientific journal, recently published a Supplement focused entirely on
science communication. I was happy to see this arrive in my inbox from my
mentor because not only do I want to work professionally as a science
communicator, but I also want my fellow scientists to recognize the importance
of this endeavor and focus on the presentation of our work to non-scientists.
Frankly, I expect it will be easier to get a job if people give a damn. And my
motivations for wanting to get into science communication are several, but
among them is a desire to see the issue of talking about science taken
seriously and worked on by scientists of all kinds.

(A note: The full articles are open access and available to
all. So take a look!)

There are twelve articles in this Supplement and I have yet
to churn through them all, but I want to present a summary and commentary of
one in particular. I think it is representative of some of the accomplishments
and limitations of this kind of scientific writing on science communication.

Titled “Using narratives and storytelling to communication
science with nonexpert audiences,” this article by Michael Dahlstrom argues
that, despite storytelling’s un-scientific nature, it is an effective form of
communication that should be leveraged in our efforts to speak with
non-scientists. Contrasting narrative with the “logical-scientific” form of
communication common within scientific groups, the author notes how scientific
communication aims to remain general and true across contexts, while narratives
are inherently tied to a specific context for their meaning.

Drawing on social science research, Dahlstrom points to the
primacy of narrative in the human brain. We think in narratives, we speak in
narratives, we muse over the past and plan the future entirely in stories. An
intrinsic property of human thinking is to prioritize narrative over the
less-familiar scientific forms of thinking we have developed over the
centuries. It’s presented as an evolutionary advantage for our social species.
So, harnessing the power of narrative to drill into the psyche provides an
advantage to anyone using the form, including scientists.

Dahlstrom goes on to take the media as an example: forced to
compete for an audience’s attention, media naturally gravitates to the powerful
narrative format that connects with people. Yet there are limitations—in column
inches and in accuracy—to the ability of this kind of narrative journalism to
capture scientific workings.

Finally, the article concludes by pondering ethical issues.
Should scientists try to bring the public to the right answer, or engage them
more on the process and be open for debates? Who decides when it is okay to
lead people on in the name of the greater good? Should narratives be used at
all, given their limitations in accuracy? Specifically, Dahlstrom questions
whether non-scientists will respect the narrative form, given their expectation
that we will be speaking in scientific terms.

Well, to answer that, I’d say take a look at Radiolab’s Twitter followers (153,000).Of course
people respond to narrative! This article is powerful in its direct take on the
fallacy that narrative has no place in scientific communication, and its reliance
on social science research to conclusively prove that point, and in its
visibility for other scientists.

Ironically, because it is after all a scientific article,
this contribution is itself an example of the blunt instrument that is
scientific writing for communicating with an audience. A couple quotes that
feel both clumsy and self-evident: “individual people generally act in a
timespan that more closely matches the frequency of news publication.” Or, in
reference to narratives: “Obvious examples include interpersonal conversation,
entertainment television programs, and news profiles…” The fault is not with
this article per se, but this article itself demonstrates some of the
limitations of this format.

I am fascinated by some of the ethical issues raised. Using
narratives to communicate science is a no-brainer to me. But how do we best use
them? What about representativeness? Stories rely on the power of a single
example to demonstrate something grander. But if that example is chosen poorly,
then the audience arrives at the ‘wrong’ conclusion. Or, perhaps worse, if an
unrepresentative example is chosen deliberately to lead an audience to the
‘right’ conclusion, then we contend with acting unethically and losing the
trust of our audience.

Finally, the article raises some questions that cannot be
succinctly answered. My favorite: What is the best way to communicating beyond
the human scale? We are built to consider timescales of days, maybe years. Not
billions of years. Not nanometers or lightyears, not the mass of the sun, or
the movement of electrons, or the probabilistic nature of biology. Through
careful deliberation we can consider all of these. But in narrative format,
every metaphor feels inadequate and we are left with great challenges to
communicate the real science performed every day in a way that is engaging,
accurate, and relatable.

I am glad to see this conversation going on at the
highest levels. I hope other scientists are reading and listening. Maybe next
time, we should tell them a story about it instead.

Dating — online or off — is frustrating and bewildering, a long and tearful journey to a great partner. While technology has absolutely transformed how we find potential dates, the most significant change is cultural. Instead of settling down with someone “good enough” we ask so much from our partners now that it’s only natural the search for them is arduous.

Our conversations about civic matters—economic policies, schooling systems, religion, science, and social institutions—are severely lacking in nuance and reasoned debate. Instead, what flourishes are simplistic arguments and ad hominem attacks. This trend is strengthened by a media environment where we can easily consume pieces tailored to our point of view, avoiding challenge and change.

On Being is a weekly public radio show hosted by Krista Tippett ostensibly about religion and spirituality, but now the host of a broader series of discussions called the Civil Conversations Project. I used to turn off On Being when it came on my radio Sunday afternoons, put off by the wispy quality, assuming it was a liberal echo chamber of feel-good, empty spirituality.

But as I would listen in snippets, or accidentally turn it on in the car, I found it to be a series of careful, respectful dialogues about difficult subjects, with religion, of course, among the trickiest.

So it did not altogether surprise me to find myself enchanted by arecent episode on gay marriage, which really became a window into how to have civil debates. An interview of David Blankenhorn and Jonathon Rauch—originally on opposite sides of the gay marriage debate, and now friends in agreement on many issues—the discussion covered David’s changed mind on gay marriage, but much more interestingly their process of what they called “achieving disagreement.”

For this post I really want to excerpt some longer segments that, I think, speak for themselves. I encourage listening to the full episode. To have two people agree about how to disagree, that are intellectually honest in their point of view and empathetic enough to consider the other side is tragically rare these days and models a better way to converse. I think we can learn from them how to continue to passionately disagree while remaining not just polite, but truly civil.